Wet Clutch for Early Sportsters

[vph-d]

I might as well mention on the dry clutch, you should paint the ratchet plate rivet heads with a sealer such as Gasoila. Some people paint the rivets on the outer surface of the drum, too.
VPH-D

[billpedalino]

VPH-D (and others);

I have my '64 XLCH totally assembled (mach-up) and ready for disassembly and paint. The motor is totally dry and I'm not going to start it up until after final assembly. However, I did notice that after assembling the handlebars and lever assemblies, the Barnett wet clutch does offer a significantly stiffer handle-pull. I used the Barnett springs and I called Barnett (they are very helpful) and was told to back out the springs a couple of clips. This helped a little but its still a fairly hard pull. I could live with this but my concern is the relatively thin pin bushing (P/N 43033-49) in the clutch handle. I'm concerned that the cable ferrule will eventually pull through, as this pin was strengthened substantially in '65.

I'm thinking of using the stock (lighter) springs in lieu of the Barnett springs for a lighter handle-pull, but I know that the engaged plate pressure will be reduced and therefore more prone to clutch slippage. Has anyone used the stock springs for the Barnett application and if so, how did they work?

Thanks...

[vph-d]

Bill,
IIRC, I put stock XL springs in my wife's wet clutch. The handle pull isn't bad at all...
VPH-D

[billpedalino]

That's was my decision as well. I'm not dealing with a left handle pull that will develop a 'Popeye' left forearm. Thanks for the reply....

[SportsterPaul]

re: Wet Clutch for Early Sportsters

The general wisdom I have heard is to run the heavier Barnett springs when you use the wet clutch plate conversion. There is no way to get the same torque out of a wet clutch unless you increase the plate pressure. You have lubricated the plates for gosh sake. That is why its so nice to hang onto a dry setup. My race buddies have to have dry clutches so they can push-start the bike.

One member mentioned all the things that go wrong that let oil leak in. One he didn't say is that the thrust washers captivated by the ratchet pawl plate get worn by a few thousandths, and now the whole basket can shake and sag. That angular movement lets the oil seal behind the thrust washers pass a little oil. Those thrust washers come in calibrated thicknesses so you can take the wobble out of the clutch basket.

Another trick to get better disengagement with a wet conversion is to use the steel Barnett levers. Being flat, they allow a little more pull than the stock aluminum levers.

[RickXLGuy]

I've done 2 wet plate conversions, one in a 67 other in a 58. Only change is the plates, everything else the same, stock, including springs. They are sensational, no slip or drag, just set and forget. When installing the instruction was to coat in ATF, which I did, then assembled and adjusted. Happy days from then on. I run engine oil in the gearbox/primary, which is either 40/70 or 25/70 grade Penrite brand, so once warmed up the gearbox doesn't make too much noise and shifts well. I haven't needed to use any tricks, maybe just lucky. Rick

[vph-d]

I found a note recently from when I built my wife's 69 back in 1981. It says I used KR clutch springs.
VPH-D

[billpedalino]

Ah Ha! Thank You
- The motor is in the frame and the bike is on wheels but I still have the primary cover off and wrestle with the springs intermittently. They seem to be screwed out too far to get a reasonable hand pressure on the lever and I'm afraid of slippage. The springs that came with the Barnett plates are for Popeye. I'm assuming that the K springs might be slightly weaker and will allow proper pull on the lever when adjusted to the correct distance. Do you remember the spring measurement that you used?

[vph-d]

Bill,
The note I found says I used KR springs, which have to be stronger than standard stuff. The part number for the early standard springs never changed from K thru 1970. For all I know, I might have changed out the KR springs at some point for standard springs, as the clutch lever pull isn't bad at all.
I don't remember what spring measurement was used, sorry, but it was probably close to stock recommendation.
VPH-D

[billpedalino]

Thanks VPH-D.

I checked the parts manual as well and your are correct in that the P/N is the same all the way up to 1970. I'm wrestling with the decision to either loosen up the spring tension (thereby risking slippage) or keeping with the 3/16" spring measurement and living with the resulting harder handle-pull. That didn't bother me much when I was young so I'm sure I can endure it now.

[billpedalino]

As a follow-up to the above, I installed the Barnett plates in my '64, used standard springs and adjusted them a little looser than the dry clutch measurement - I went by 'lever feel'. The bike is running and, while I'm not a fan of doing so - for testing purposed I had no problem spinning the rear wheel in 1st gear with the front wheel locked. Also, there's also almost no drag on the clutch when bike is stopped and in 1st gear.

If the wet clutch continues to perform as it does now, I intend to install one in my 1970 XLCH. I'll be done with the leaky dry clutches.